Defining Art

Maybe art cannot (should not?) be defined by either/or, or by factual analysis. Rather art seems to exists in the process of analysis itself. It is not defined by whether it makes you feel or think, but by the subconscious evaluate of all of the different features of an object. Art is defined by passing some subjective threshold of weights. A threshold as individual as someone's pain threshold. When does a heap become a pile? We do not know exactly, but when we see it we have a gut feeling.

One thing that seems to be prevalent though is intent for presentation. Not that art needs to be man made, but there needs to be human intention to present something as art, that cannot lie directly with the observer. A forest in itself is not art, but a photograph of one might be? Grey concrete is seldom seen as art, even if there is intent in creation. It has too little artistic weight?

Art is a spectrum then? Weighted by evaluation of balance, rhythm, contrast, imitation, resonance, symbolism and emergent story.

Somehow the experience of art is emergent. Take this example: A photography of your living room can move on the subjective art spectrum, by the very process of observation. Imagine you observe it, and suddenly notice this: Contrasts, in the white furniture and the forest green carpet. Between the natural texture of the wooden walnut table and the manmade cup of glazed clay. The ray of sun, slipping through the half closed curtains, illuminating just the cup. Some will see something there, others will only see a photo.

You could maybe talk about strong and weak art. Art that emerges for many, or only for few. If everyone sees the hill as a hill and not a pile, is it a better hill?

Is art still art when no one is looking?